[brbethke]

The proper question is, if marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God, then why is the state in the business of regulating marriage in the first place?

I find it ironic that the same people who claim the 2nd Amendment takes precedence over state law, and therefore states have no business regulating firearms ownership, are usually the first people to demand that the state "do something" about gay marriage, when clearly the same argument can be made invoking the 1st Amendment.

Marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God. The 1st Amendment protects religious expression and takes precedence over state law. Therefore, the state has no business licensing and regulating marriage.

[BikerNYC]

Marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God.

It can be, but it doesn't have to be. Many people decide to get married by a justice of the peace, outside of a house of worship. It's pretty clear that marriage does not have to be religiously based.

[Zack Nguyen]

That just isn't realistic. The state has to step in at some point in the marriage process. People divorce, and the courts must decide who gets what. Child custody is an issue. The government must enforce wills in the event of death of one partner. The government must enforce child support payments, if so ordered by the court. The government must enforce laws against bigamy.

And to do all these things, the government has to know whether someone is married or not. Therefore the government must define what marriage is or is not.